The winner is the Magicshine MJ-872, which is also the fifth cheapest light in the test. The MJ-808 is the second cheapest light. Magishine is a Chinese company, so you expect them to be cheap, perhaps at the cost of less reliability. There are a few USA based distributors that offer a warranty. Outside of the top 5, the lights only offer a 4.54 to 1.23 lumens to dollar ratio. That is less than half of the MJ-872. Maybe next year they will break the 10 lumens/dollar ratio.

Obviously there are other factors to consider in a light, such as warranty, beam shape, runtime, water resistance, etc.

Take an XML-1 clone available all over for less than $40 delivered. Figure 600 lumens. That's 15 lumens per $$ babe blowing away the competition!!

Just make sure you carry 2 at all times.

MB

I'm about the pull the trigger on one of those myself. You are really gambling on reliability though, at least the Magicshine have a semi-proven track record. Not to mention the triple xm-l for around $50. The batteries that come with them don't seem too great though.

Hi guys im from the Uk , I bought the dinotte xml 3 and have now ordered the xml1 on the reviews Francois did. Just one point on the graph showing measured and claimed lumens output .the xml 3 from dinotte , says on their website the xml 3 is an 1000 lumens light and not the 1200 as stated in the graph , I would hate to think guys were discounting the xml3 on the basis that they were not accurate claims made by dinotte and the measured lumens are actually higher slighty .this was one of the main reasons I did not buy any other light. exposure in the uk were using the max stated capacity of the leds and not what the actual output was .chers guys this is my first post hope ive not upsrt anybody .

Troutie is a Yorkshire man with a passion for making lights in his garden shed back in blighty.its a shame hes not in the review this year his latest light he calls spider eyes has a claimed 2600 lumens .it looks fantastic .

Guys does anyone know if magicshine has got their **** together
regarding their reliably, don't want to sound to harsh, as I realise its
a new company trying to set itself up, but
are they doing anything to rectify these reliably problems with more research and
development or are they just happy to stay as they and take our money .
Thanks Grant .

The winner is the Magicshine MJ-872, which is also the fifth cheapest light in the test. The MJ-808 is the second cheapest light. Magishine is a Chinese company, so you expect them to be cheap, perhaps at the cost of less reliability. There are a few USA based distributors that offer a warranty. Outside of the top 5, the lights only offer a 4.54 to 1.23 lumens to dollar ratio. That is less than half of the MJ-872. Maybe next year they will break the 10 lumens/dollar ratio.

Obviously there are other factors to consider in a light, such as warranty, beam shape, runtime, water resistance, etc.

Now take this from a guy that owns a MJ-856b (the 872 with better heat-sinking). The one thing everyone forgets when it comes to $ per lumen is the battery. The MJ and other knock off lights typically comes with inferior batteries with lower run time (I'm not even talking about the safety issues which I think specifically MJ has addressed). Or the batteries are much heavier with comparable run times. The MJ-880 for instance has a very heavy battery with only 2 hours run time at peak power. The DUO and X2 has similar output if not more (actual lumens, not manufacturer stated) than the MJ-880, but the battery is much smaller, lighter and lasts up to 50% longer at full power. That is something I would pay for.

I know this is a straight $/lumen calculation, but the battery (power and weight) is just as important as the light IMO. The light without the battery is nothing and I don't think it can be judged in isolation.

That being said, I think MJ has their quality issues mostly sorted and they produce dependable lights I think. Their batteries leave much to be desired IMO.

Blackbean, I dig what you're saying. Only thing is the MJ-880 is brighter than the DUO by quite a bit. Probably brighter than the X2 too, unless my eyes are really deceiving me. The 880 must be driving those LEDs quite hard; some have reported early shut down from heat. That could be why the 6-cell battery doesn't run very long. Also, the 880 lighhead is quite a bit larger than the DUO/X2 which seems to help it have nice throw. I woud not want that light-head on my helmet, but the X2 and DUO work great (nice and light with low profile).

I too have the 856 (Foride - came out before the MS version). Good light, makes a giant beam, good handlebar light. The Gemini Olympia blows it away, however.

Blackbean, I dig what you're saying. Only thing is the MJ-880 is brighter than the DUO by quite a bit. Probably brighter than the X2 too, unless my eyes are really deceiving me. The 880 must be driving those LEDs quite hard; some have reported early shut down from heat. That could be why the 6-cell battery doesn't run very long. Also, the 880 lighhead is quite a bit larger than the DUO/X2 which seems to help it have nice throw. I woud not want that light-head on my helmet, but the X2 and DUO work great (nice and light with low profile).

I too have the 856 (Foride - came out before the MS version). Good light, makes a giant beam, good handlebar light. The Gemini Olympia blows it away, however.

TCW, no argument from me as to brightness of the DUO/X2 vs the MJ-880. I bought a dual XML light based on seeing the MJ-880. I have the X2 now and will compare it to my buddy's MJ-880 when we ride together next time. The MJ-880 is small and light enough for a helmet mount IMO though. My buddy uses it as a helmet mount and he does not even notice the weight.

TCW, no argument from me as to brightness of the DUO/X2 vs the MJ-880. I bought a dual XML light based on seeing the MJ-880. I have the X2 now and will compare it to my buddy's MJ-880 when we ride together next time. The MJ-880 is small and light enough for a helmet mount IMO though. My buddy uses it as a helmet mount and he does not even notice the weight.

Cool, I'll look forward to your thoughts compared to your buddy's 880. I think the 880 weights about 120 grams. Your X2 is about 80 grams, if I remember correctly. My DUO is a few grams lighter.

I remember running 150 gram Photon Max and being happy with the weight. Funny how perception changes. I don't noticed the DUO much but when I put my Photo Max on I can really feel it.

If I had an 880, I'd probably see if a narrow 808 mount would fit. That way I could do the direct-mount method that I do with my other lights with that type mount. It knocks off a few grams and also makes it much lower profile.

The light shootouts are great and I just bought a light based on the reviews, but I have a question:

Are the 2013 light values using the same light as 2012, but in an updated test, or is it a different light in the new test?

I am curious because the Jet F-1 went down to 67 lux from 71 last year, so is that the same light tested under the new protocol, or a different light with less brightness? I only noticed because I just bought that light (but now changed and called the fu2, so the point is moot).

So do the old lux values in the shootouts get adjusted down relative to the 2013 readings, is I guess my main question.

The light shootouts are great and I just bought a light based on the reviews, but I have a question:

Are the 2013 light values using the same light as 2012, but in an updated test, or is it a different light in the new test?

I am curious because the Jet F-1 went down to 67 lux from 71 last year, so is that the same light tested under the new protocol, or a different light with less brightness? I only noticed because I just bought that light (but now changed and called the fu2, so the point is moot).

So do the old lux values in the shootouts get adjusted down relative to the 2013 readings, is I guess my main question.

I'll retest this. I switched batteries on this Jet F1 from their Sanyo 3200 to a generic cell.